General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems RM-277

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • tallen702

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 3, 2012
    5,102
    In the boonies of MoCo
    Well, sure. But there are also organized military entities in some, er, remote areas ... that still use sharpened sticks and bows.

    I am always entertained by the “it was only meant to give you the right to a musket” logical rabbit hole those folks go down, sometimes. That was a for-SURE weapon of war at the time, and no mistaking.

    What's even more interesting is that American-made rifles in private hands in the colonies were far superior to the standard Brown Bess. They had greater accuracy, range, and (ever so slightly better) speed of loading as they were made with the wide-open spaces of the colonies and their hostile frontiers in mind vs the more up-close situation of European battlefields of the time. The founding fathers absolutely understood this to be the case and when you think about it, it means that the 2A enshrines the ability of the American citizen to own not only "weapons of war" but "superior weapons of war" so that they may throw off the yoke of repression in the face of a standing army.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    Well, they had greate accuracy and range .

    The comparison I like to make, is that the Brown Bess was a State of the Art Military Asault Weapon at the time .
     

    woodline

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2017
    1,947
    No, it's not. Everything I've read on the LSAT and NGSW trials points to the firearms and the rounds being less heavy. That's the whole point of it. They wanted to give soldiers in the field the ability to carry more ammo for the same poundage which the LSAT trials achieved with the 6.8 round before they ceased testing to move on to the NGSW program.

    In regards to the General Dynamics decision to go with a bullpup, the controls and charging handle are ambidextrous and the spent cases are forward-ejecting despite the port being on the side. The reason they went with the 6.8 round was to get much greater accuracy at distance (past the 300m mark that the M4 had to qualify at) and give greater "oomf" to the round at range given the greater use of body armor by belligerents in modern warfare.

    Sig and Textron also have offered up prototypes based heavily on the lessons learned from the LSAT testing.
    Yes and no. Less heavy than WHAT is the question. You're assuming an AR15 or an individual soldier's load. That is not how the Army calculates load. They average it by squad or platoon, typically, and even go as far as to create weird lethality per troop metrics that are based on a bunch of assumed values related to power factor based on specs of the ammunition. The concept driving the 6.8MM NGSW program is OVERMATCH, a TRADOC invention that is very popular with Army leadership as a wargame concept. The OVERMATCH philosophy calls for superior body armor penetration as well as increased range (stated repeatedly by GEN Milley as a compromise between short range infantry requirements and long range sniper/SDM/heavy weapons requirements). A major problem with the requirements that the Army published is that the spec on the ammo is unrealistic. The Sig offering, for instance, is a 7.62x51 cartridge necked down to 6.8mm. In general the offerings range from 120-140 grains in weight for the bullet, and muzzle velocity is approximately 3000-3400 fps depending on which iteration of the solicitation you are talking about. There is no way on earth that requirement is going to lighten the load on an individual soldier, which is why the Pentagon plays games by dancing around what they mean by "lighter" and "lowering the burden." The only way that is going to work out is if they start with the assumption that to meet OVERMATCH requirements (a thing that intentionally compartmentalizes lethality into isolated streams instead of looking for overall lethality) the average troop of the future would be equipped with a 7.62x51 battle rifle, or by taking ammo away which is where the made up lethality metric per round issued comes into play, or by comparing the base weight of the NGSW infantry rifle with that of the M4 100% decked out with optics, day/night aiming devices, light, etc. The recoil alone specified by this round is going to reduce number of rounds on target, which historically is found to be the primary factor in battlefield lethality.

    This is an old game that the Army has been playing for years. I honestly think it is great that they solicit future weapons from the commercial market, but that doesn't make the solicitations remotely realistic. Closer to realistic perhaps, but not there yet. Definitely better than the OICW.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    Yes and no. Less heavy than WHAT is the question. You're assuming an AR15 or an individual soldier's load. That is not how the Army calculates load. They average it by squad or platoon, typically, and even go as far as to create weird lethality per troop metrics that are based on a bunch of assumed values related to power factor based on specs of the ammunition. The concept driving the 6.8MM NGSW program is OVERMATCH, a TRADOC invention that is very popular with Army leadership as a wargame concept. The OVERMATCH philosophy calls for superior body armor penetration as well as increased range (stated repeatedly by GEN Milley as a compromise between short range infantry requirements and long range sniper/SDM/heavy weapons requirements). A major problem with the requirements that the Army published is that the spec on the ammo is unrealistic. The Sig offering, for instance, is a 7.62x51 cartridge necked down to 6.8mm. In general the offerings range from 120-140 grains in weight for the bullet, and muzzle velocity is approximately 3000-3400 fps depending on which iteration of the solicitation you are talking about. There is no way on earth that requirement is going to lighten the load on an individual soldier, which is why the Pentagon plays games by dancing around what they mean by "lighter" and "lowering the burden." The only way that is going to work out is if they start with the assumption that to meet OVERMATCH requirements (a thing that intentionally compartmentalizes lethality into isolated streams instead of looking for overall lethality) the average troop of the future would be equipped with a 7.62x51 battle rifle, or by taking ammo away which is where the made up lethality metric per round issued comes into play, or by comparing the base weight of the NGSW infantry rifle with that of the M4 100% decked out with optics, day/night aiming devices, light, etc. The recoil alone specified by this round is going to reduce number of rounds on target, which historically is found to be the primary factor in battlefield lethality.

    This is an old game that the Army has been playing for years. I honestly think it is great that they solicit future weapons from the commercial market, but that doesn't make the solicitations remotely realistic. Closer to realistic perhaps, but not there yet. Definitely better than the OICW.

    The composite casing keeps weight of each cartridge down and the recoil system of this gun reduces recoil to roughly 5.56 AR territory from reports. 6.8 is a compromise of the ballistics of the 6.5 and lethality of 7mm. It's where the 6.8 spc came from. Itll be interesting to see how this develops. It looks like it has lots of potential, especially that muzzle device.
     

    Mike OTDP

    Ultimate Member
    Feb 12, 2008
    3,318
    What's even more interesting is that American-made rifles in private hands in the colonies were far superior to the standard Brown Bess. They had greater accuracy, range, and (ever so slightly better) speed of loading as they were made with the wide-open spaces of the colonies and their hostile frontiers in mind vs the more up-close situation of European battlefields of the time.

    Umm...not quite. There was a reason why Washington armed his Army with those smoothbore flintlock muskets.

    A rifle has an advantage in accuracy, but pays for it in time to reload. A smoothbore, especially with the undersized military loads, was much faster to shoot, but not nearly as accurate (they'll shoot surprisingly straight with a patched round ball of the right size). Americans tended to use buck-and-ball loads, with three buckshot on top of the main ball. Very effective to 40 yards. But with military loads, effective range of a military smoothbore flintlock musket was around 100 yards. If you were 150 yards away, you could eat lunch in safety.

    The British had stolen a tactic from the Scots...combine a single volley fired at close range (like 30 yards) with an immediate charge with cold steel. Which would reliably break any but the most determined and disciplined troops. Continental Line infantry could handle it, sometimes. The French under Napoleon rarely could.

    Anyone wanting to study the subject is advised to read Brent Nosworthy's book, "With Musket, Cannon, and Sword." It's primarily on the Napoleonic wars, but the French picked up a lot of lessons from the American War for Independence. I was at the French military museum at Les Invalides last June, and it was interesting how much attention the French pay to that conflict.
     

    woodline

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jan 8, 2017
    1,947
    The composite casing keeps weight of each cartridge down and the recoil system of this gun reduces recoil to roughly 5.56 AR territory from reports. 6.8 is a compromise of the ballistics of the 6.5 and lethality of 7mm. It's where the 6.8 spc came from. Itll be interesting to see how this develops. It looks like it has lots of potential, especially that muzzle device.
    The Brevis Suppressor is cool. The composite case keeps the weight down in relation to what? As I said of the 3 downselects at least one (the Sig) is confirmed to be 7.62x51 sized. The other two downselects have more compact cartridges, but there is only so much weight you can shave from a 120-140 grain projectile + powder quantity to move said projectile 3000+ fps, even with a composite case. Published 6.8 SPC loads tend to max out around 115gr at 2600fps, for comparison. As to the recoil system making the recoil 5.56-like, I highly doubt that this will A.) Turn out to be true, B.) Be reliable C.) be cost effective. I have literally never done a shoot house or other dynamic activity with a gun that fired a cartridge in a similar muzzle energy category to what the requisition specifies and demonstrated remotely the same speed and accuracy as 5.56. Additionally, this does nothing to address the fact that a 6.8mm projectile moving that fast is going to be a barrel burner, so either accepted accuracy or barrel life will take a serious hit. TANSTAAFL.

    The real question is will Army leadership push forward with this regardless of what troop feedback is going to be, cook the books on troop trials to only get the feedback they want, only replace 7.62x51 with the NGSW instead of both 5.56 and 7.62 (honestly a pretty good idea), or eventually scrap the whole thing like they usually do when leadership culture shifts to new lines of thought?
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    No, it's not. Everything I've read on the LSAT and NGSW trials points to the firearms and the rounds being less heavy. That's the whole point of it. They wanted to give soldiers in the field the ability to carry more ammo for the same poundage which the LSAT trials achieved with the 6.8 round before they ceased testing to move on to the NGSW program.

    In regards to the General Dynamics decision to go with a bullpup, the controls and charging handle are ambidextrous and the spent cases are forward-ejecting despite the port being on the side. The reason they went with the 6.8 round was to get much greater accuracy at distance (past the 300m mark that the M4 had to qualify at) and give greater "oomf" to the round at range given the greater use of body armor by belligerents in modern warfare.

    Sig and Textron also have offered up prototypes based heavily on the lessons learned from the LSAT testing.

    The gun is lighter compared to the existing SAW and the round is lighter compared to an existing brass cased equivalent. The 6.8 round is going to be heavier than a 5.56 round because it is a much heavier bullet with much larger powder requirements to accelerate the heavier bullet.

    If you watch the video, the cases are ejected out the side with the cheek weld right over the ejection port. Lefties get to eat the spent case. That is the problem with most bull pups. They are not ambidextrous because of the ejection port.
     

    gforce

    Active Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 22, 2018
    477
    I am not sure the length of pull is that much of an issue. The biggest problem with a bullpup is the lack of ambidexterity. The case is ejected into the face of a left handed shooter. You may be able to change it but there are occasions where off side shooting is advantageous for the moment and then need to switch back.

    Ah that makes sense, never handled a bullpup didnt think about getting popped in the face with brass.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    I really, really want to like the concept of a bullpup . The idea of long bbl foe ballistic optimization combined with short OAL would be the bee's knees . But ambi capabilities, and decent trigger are major design challenges .
     

    Occam

    Not Even ONE Indictment
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 24, 2018
    20,239
    Montgomery County
    I recently shot a friend's homely but quite interesting Kel-Tec .308 bullpup. The company's founder is a lefty, so ambidexterity is a personal crusade for him. In that particular case, you move the charging handle from side to side. Brass, in a kind of amusing away, dribbles its way out trough forward through the shroud - no flinging, per se, and definitely not in anyone's face. Seems to work well. Gun was a pleasure to shoot, and very accurate. I'm not normally drawn to bullpups because I'm an old fashioned crank. But I can see where they're going with that.
     

    Pinecone

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Feb 4, 2013
    28,175
    While I like my Tavor, and would love to have an AUG, they do balance strangely.
     

    huesmann

    n00b
    Mar 23, 2012
    1,927
    Silver Spring, MD
    While I like my Tavor, and would love to have an AUG, they do balance strangely.
    My wife actually prefers my Tavor to my AR-15s, because it balances better—less forward-heavy.

    Also, the blurb in the OP says the magazine is all the way to the back? Looks pretty much to me like where it is in any other bullpup I've seen—about halfway between butt and trigger group.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,925
    Messages
    7,259,285
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom